Advice Columns

[laurenj]

May 11, 2017 11:37:32 GMT -4 Laira said:

Here's another doozy from Ask A Manager:

www.askamanager.org/2017/05/my-employee-set-up-a-false-fraud-investigation-because-she-was-being-abused-and-wanted-the-police.html#comment-1483484

One employee framed another for financial fraud, including falsified documentation which led to a police investigation. The employee claimed it was because she was the victim of domestic abuse and wanted to speak to the police, although why she couldn't have borrowed someone's phone in the ladies room and called 911 instead of setting up a coworker on an embezzlement charge wasn't explained. Anyway, the framed employee was suspended without pay, lost her home and had her reputation ruined. Naturally, the framed employee wants the person who framed her fired. The LW seems to think that this is unreasonable.

What is it lately with AAM and these people who bitch because the injured party doesn't want to work with someone who threw them in front of a moving car or framed them for embezzlement?

I have to assume she's looking to drive up traffic/get more clicks by posting these crazy letters on her site, but it seems like a departure from what I thought the intent of her site was. I assumed she answered letters publicly as a source of information and practical help for tricky (but typically mundane) office situations.

These letters can be interesting in a trainwreck-y kind of way, but are certainly not something most people can relate to or would get any kind of valuable advice from.

[Laira]

What irks me is Amy's disingenuousness when the comments get heated. She keeps posting these bizarre letters than pretends to be surprised when the commenters have strong opinions.

And yes, Jane should be booted out the door and Mary reinstated with a fat raise. I'm also cynical about the letter's authenticity.

[Mutagen]

I don't mind the grab-your-popcorn letters per se, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't totally entertained by some of them, but I agree that the "surprise" when the comments explode is kind of silly.

And I agree about the one with Jane and Mary - I'm REALLY skeptical. How was it so easy for Jane to frame her coworker? How did the legal investigation not result in any apparent consequences for Jane? As a general rule I try not to get hung up on nitpicking letters since I know they get edited, people obscure details in order to stay anonymous, people are trying to condense a situation into a few paragraphs, all that jazz. But that one just seemed soooo baity (domestic violence vs coworker who got completely screwed). I actually just plain hope it's not true because if it is, what a horrible, unfair situation.

[Gigiree]

I cannot believe that letter was real. The fact that Jane committed several types crimes while framing Mary is not negated by the fact she is/was being abused by her spouse. I cannot think of a single organization that would allow Jane to continue working for them.

Plus, I may be a bitch because having grown up in a household of rampant domestic violence, I have zero sympathy for a victim who would attempt to destroy an innocent person in order to save herself. That plan was completely asinine and unnecessarily convoluted. A phone call from a borrowed cell phone in the ladies' room would have ended in the same damn result without ruining someone else's life.

[Deleted]

Filing a false police report is either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on what state they're in, and this type of a frame-up probably also involved falsifying financial records which I'm pretty sure is also a crime. "Jane" would be in a shitload of trouble with the authorities for this if it actually happened. I don't think it did.

[peachybean]

This makes me think of my favorite Forensic Files episode ever! Joanne Chambers was an elementary school teacher who started to receive threatening letters that included threatening rape and calling her a lesbian and creepy stuff like a doll. Eventually the harassment elevated to the point that she was nearly run off the road in her car. Chambers identified the harasser as Paula Nawrocki, another first grade teacher at the same school. Nawrocki was brought up on charges and it went to trial. Through DNA testing, it was found that the threatening letters came from Chambers herself! She had even done something similar at a different school before. Her interview on the show is bananas. Both women appeared.

Anyway, my favorite part is the final screen that informs you that both women still teach for the same district!

On topic, some continued employment may be to have clear cause for termination.

[newmanium]

I remember the Chambers case. I assume she was protected by the teacher's union.

As for Jane, assuming that the letter is real, I wonder if the domestic abuse was real. Anyone who would concoct an elaborate framing scheme is perfectly capable about lying about anything else. If I were Joe's defense lawyer, I'd have a field day with the whole "frame Mary" thing. It would really destroy her credibility. [/damn I'm getting cynical in my old age]

I really don't get the commentors. They were dripping with sympathy for 'Poor Jane', while barely showing any concern for Mary. It was the same a few weeks ago with the poor woman who was thrown under a moving car, badly injured and didn't want to work with her abuser. Then, there was a letter about a woman who was tickled by a coworker and they were all "BURN THE WITCH!" So pushing someone under a car or framing them for embezzlement is, if not okay, understandable, but tickling someone is a fireable offense?

[Mutagen]

In the case of both car push guy and Jane, I think commenters were zealously trying not to come down on a person with a mental illness/domestic violence victim respectively. Which is a good instinct, but some people just take to too far and start shitting on the person they hurt.  Like the very black and white "who is the REAL victim" thinking won't allow acknowledgment that someone can be dealing with a shitty situation AND also have caused severe harm to an innocent person.

That's part of why I'm so about the Jane vs. Mary letter... it just seems SO designed to push that button. And honestly, my general philosophy is that I don't really care if it's a fake letter if it's something that could've plausibly happened, but there are just too many implausibilities in that one. Every company I've ever worked at, even the tiny ones, would've been shitting bricks at the kind of data breach Jane's actions represented. There would've been a top-to-bottom, come-to-Jesus audit internally to say nothing of external legal consequences.

I think the tickler had no extenuating circumstance like the domestic violence situation or a phobia or whatever, so it was easier to jump on the "hang 'em at dawn" wagon. 

[boxofrocks]

Mutagen, I agree about the supposed extenuating factor changing the audience's perception of the issue.

AAM seems to be posting pretty outlandish letters lately. These should be paced, although I sympathize with the need to get clicks and generate new content. Surely, there must be a happy medium between posting "How do I write a cover letter?" for the millionth time and these 700+ comment pile-ons.

[Mugsy]

Re: the false fraud letter. If Jane is such a master manipulator that she can create a false fraud against her coworker, then why didn't she just concoct the scheme against her abusive husband? Two birds, one stone.